The History of London by Walter Besant

113 Pages·2021·0.84 MB·English

The Project Gutenberg EBook of The History of London, by Walter Besant

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org

Title: The History of London

Author: Walter Besant

Release Date: February 4, 2009 [EBook #27995]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY OF LONDON ***

Produced by Susan Skinner and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

Cover

THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT: DESIGNED BY BARRY, OPENED 1852.

THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT: DESIGNED BY BARRY, OPENED 1852.

THE

HISTORY OF LONDON

BY

WALTER BESANT

AUTHOR OF 'LONDON' 'CHILDREN OF GIBEON' ETC.

SECOND EDITION

LONDON

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.

1894

All rights reserved

CONTENTS.

LESSON
PAGE

1. The Foundation of London (I)
7

2. The Foundation of London (II)
10

3. Roman London (I)
13

4. Roman London (II)
16

5. After the Romans (I)
19

6. After the Romans (II)
23

7. After the Romans (III)
26

8. The First Saxon Settlement
29

9. The Second Saxon Settlement
32

10. The Anglo-Saxon Citizen
34

11. The Wall of London
38

12. Norman London
42

13. Fitzstephen's Account of the City (I)
45

14. Fitzstephen's Account of the City (II)
50

15. London Bridge (I)
54

16. London Bridge (II)
57

17. The Tower of London (I)
60

18. The Tower of London (II)
63

19. The Pilgrims
67

20. St. Bartholomew's Hospital
70

21. The Terror of Leprosy
74

22. The Terror of Famine
78

23. St. Paul's Cathedral (I)
82

24. St. Paul's Cathedral (II)
86

25. Paul's Churchyard
91

26. The Religious Houses
95

27. Monks, Friars, and Nuns
100

28. The London Churches
103

29. The Streets
106

30. Whittington (I)
110

31. Whittington (II)
115

32. Whittington (III)
118

33. Gifts and Bequests
121

34. The Palaces and Great Houses
124

35. Amusements
127

36. Westminster Abbey
131

37. The Court at Westminster
134

38. Justice and Punishments
137

39. The Political Power of London
140

40. Elizabethan London (I)
144

41. Elizabethan London (II)
147

42. Elizabethan London (III)
151

43. Trade (I)
155

44. Trade (II)
158

45. Trade (III)
164

46. Plays and Pageants (I)
168

47. Plays and Pageants (II)
170

48. Plays and Pageants (III)
173

49. Plays and Pageants (IV)
177

50. The Terror of the Plague (I)
180

51. The Terror of the Plague (II)
183

52. The Terror of Fire (I)
187

53. The Terror of Fire (II)
192

54. Rogues and Vagabonds
197

55. Under George the Second (I)
201

56. Under George the Second (II)
206

57. Under George the Second (III)
210

58. Under George the Second (IV)
214

59. Under George the Second (V)
218

60. The Government of the City (I)
222

61. The Government of the City (II)
226

62. The Government of the City (III)
228

63. London
230

Notes
235

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

PAGE

1. The New Houses of Parliament: designed by Barry, opened 1852
Frontispiece

2. Early British Pottery
9

3. Roman London
15

4. Remains of a Viking Ship, from a Cairn at Gokstad
22

5. Martyrdom of St. Edmund by the Danes
31

6. Saxon Horsemen
33

7. Saxon Church at Bradford-on-Avon, Wilts
36

8. City Gates
39

9. Remains of the Wall
40

10. Part of the Roman Wall at Leicester
41

11. Tower in the Earlier Style. Church at Earl's Barton
44

12. A Norman Ship
46

13. Building a Church in the later Style
47

14. Lay Costumes in the Twelfth Century
50

15. Costume of Shepherds in the Twelfth Century
51

16. Ecclesiastical Costume in the Twelfth Century
52

17. Royal Arms of England from Richard I. to Edward III.
54

18. Old London Bridge
57

19. The Tower of London
61, 64

20. A Bed in the Reign of Henry III.
67

21. Interior of the Hall at Penshurst, Kent
71

22. The Upper Chamber or Solar at Sutton Courtenay Manor-house
73

23. The Lepers Begging
77

24. London before the Spire of St. Paul's was burned; showing the Bridge, Tower, Shipping, &c.
83

25. Old St. Paul's, from the East
85

26. Old St. Paul's on Fire
87

27. West Front of St. Paul's Cathedral Church. (Built by Sir Christopher Wren)
89

28. Paul's Cross
92

29. Bermondsey Abbey
96

30. Ruins of Gateway of Bermondsey Abbey
97

31. Christ's Hospital
99

32. Chepe in the Fifteenth Century
108

33. Large Ship and Boat of the Fifteenth Century
111

34. A Sea-Fight
113

35. Durham, Salisbury, and Worcester Houses
125

36. Bear-baiting
128

37. Shooting at the Butts with the Long-bow
129

38. Tomb of Edward III. in Westminster Abbey
132

39. The Embarkation of Henry VIII. from Dover, 1520
141

40. Coaches in the Reign of Elizabeth
148

41. The City from Southwark
150

42. South-east Part of London in the Fifteenth Century, showing the Tower and Wall
153

43. King Edward VI.
159

44. Sir Thomas Gresham
161

45. First Royal Exchange
162

46. Shipping in the Thames, circa 1660
166

47. Sir Francis Drake, in his Forty-third Year
167

48. The Globe Theatre
179

49. Civil Costume about 1620
181

50. Costume of a Lawyer
181

Ordinary Civil Costume; temp. Charles I.:

51. A Countryman
185

52. A Countrywoman
185

53. A Citizen
187

54. A Citizen's Wife
187

55. A Gentleman
189

56. A Gentlewoman
189

57. Lud-gate on Fire
190

58. Paul Pindar's House
191

59. London, as Rebuilt after the Fire
193

60. Coach of the latter half of the Seventeenth Century
195

61. Waggon of the second half of the Seventeenth Century
195

62. Ordinary Dress of Gentlemen in 1675
197

63. Dress of Ladies of Quality
199

64. Ordinary Attire of Women of the Lower Classes
199

65. Group showing Costumes and Sedan Chair, about 1720
202

66. Temple Bar, London
203

67. Fleet Street and Temple Bar
205

68. A Coach of the Middle of the Seventeenth Century
207

69. View of School connected with Bunyan's Meeting House
209

70. Grenadier in the time of the Peninsular War
211

71. Uniform of Sailors, about 1790
213

72. Costumes of Gentlefolk, about 1784
215

73. Vessels unloading at the Customs House, at the beginning of the Eighteenth Century
217

74. The Old Houses of Parliament and Westminster Abbey, 1803
221

LONDON

{7}

1. THE FOUNDATION OF LONDON.

PART I.

'In the year 1108 b.c., Brutus, a descendant of Æneas, who was the son of Venus, came to England with his
companions, after the taking of Troy, and founded the City of Troynovant, which is now called London. After a
thousand years, during which the City grew and flourished exceedingly, one Lud became its king. He built walls and
towers, and, among other things, the famous gate whose name still survives in the street called Ludgate. King Lud was
succeeded by his brother Cassivelaunus, in whose time happened the invasion of the Romans under Julius Cæsar.
Troynovant, or London, then became a Roman city. It was newly fortified by Helena, mother of Constantine the Great.'

This is the legend invented or copied by Geoffrey of Monmouth, and continued to be copied, and perhaps believed,
almost to the present day. Having paid this tribute to old tradition, let us relate the true early history of the City, as it can
be recovered from such documents as remain, from discoveries made in excavation, from fragments of architecture, and
from the lie of the ground. The testimony derived from the lie of the ground is more important than any other, for several
reasons. First, an historical document may be false, or inexact; for instance, the invention of a Brutus, son of Æneas, is
false and absurd on the face of it. Or a document may be wrongly interpreted. Thus, a fragment of architecture may
through ignorance be ascribed to the Roman, when it belongs to the Norman, period—one needs to be a profound
student of architecture before an opinion of value can be pronounced upon the age of any monument: or it may be taken
to mean something quite apart from the truth, as if a bastion of the old Roman fort, such as has been discovered on
Cornhill, should be taken for part of the Roman wall. But the lie of the ground cannot deceive, and, in competent hands,
cannot well be misunderstood. If we know the course of streams, the height and position of hills, the run of valleys, the
site of marshes, the former extent of forests, the safety of harbours, the existence of fords, we have in our hands a
guide-book to history. We can then understand why towns were built in certain positions, why trade sprang up, why
invading armies landed at certain places, what course was taken by armies, and why battles have been fought on certain
spots. For these things are not the result of chance, they are necessitated by the geographical position of the place, and
by the lie of the ground. Why, for instance, is Dover one of the oldest towns in the country? Because it is the nearest
landing ground for the continent, and because its hill forms a natural fortress for protecting that landing ground. Why
was there a Roman station at Portsmouth? On account of the great and landlocked harbour. Why is Durham an ancient
city? Because the steep hill made it almost impregnable. Why is Chester so called? Because it was from very ancient
times a fort, or stationary camp (L. castra), against the wild Welsh.

EARLY BRITISH POTTERY.

EARLY BRITISH POTTERY.

Let us consider this question as regards London. Look at the map called 'Roman London' (p. 15). You will there see
flowing into the river Thames two little streams, one called Walbrook, and the other called the Fleet River. You will see
a steep slope, or cliff, indicated along the river side. Anciently, before any buildings stood along the bank, this cliff,
about 30 feet high, rose over an immense marsh which covered all the ground on the south, the east, and the west. The
cliff receded from the river on the east and on the west at this point: on either side of the Walbrook it rose out of the
marsh at the very edge of the river at high tide. There was thus a double hill, one on the east with the Walbrook on one
side of it, the Thames on a second side, and a marsh on a third side, and the Fleet River on the west. It was thus
bounded on east, south, and west, by streams. On the north was a wild moor (hence the name Moorfields) and beyond
the moor stretched away northwards a vast forest, afterwards called the Middlesex forest. This forest covered, indeed,
the greater part of the island, save where marshes and stagnant lakes lay extended, the haunt of countless wild birds.
You may see portions and fragments of this forest even now; some of it lies in Ken Wood, Hampstead; some in the last
bit left of Hainault Forest; some at Epping.

The river Thames ran through this marsh. It was then much broader than at present, because there were no banks or
quays to keep it within limits: at high tide it overflowed the whole of the marsh and lay in an immense lake, bounded on
the north by this low cliff of clay, and on the south by the rising ground of what we now call the Surrey Hills, which

{8}

{9}

{10}

begin between Kennington and Clapham, as is shown by the name of Clapham Rise. In this marsh were a few low
islets, always above water save at very high tides. The memory of these islands is preserved in the names ending with ea
or ey, as Chelsea, Battersea, Bermondsey. And Westminster Abbey was built upon the Isle of Thorns or Thorney. The
marsh, south of the river, remained a marsh, undrained and neglected for many centuries. Almost within the memory of
living men Southwark contained stagnant ponds, while Bermondsey is still flooded when the tide is higher than is
customary.

2. THE FOUNDATION OF LONDON.

PART II.

On these low hillocks marked on the map London was first founded. The site had many advantages: it was raised
above the malarious marsh, it overlooked the river, which here was at its narrowest, it was protected by two other
streams and by the steepness of the cliff, and it was over the little port formed by the fall of one stream into the river.
Here, on the western hill, the Britons formed their first settlement; there were as yet no ships on the silent river where
they fished; there was no ferry, no bridge, no communication with the outer world; the woods provided the first
Londoners with game and skins; the river gave them fish; they lived in round huts formed of clay and branches with
thatched roofs. If you desire to understand how the Britons fortified themselves, you may see an excellent example not
very far from London. It is the place called St. George's Hill, near Weybridge. They wanted a hill—the steeper the side
the better: they made it steeper by entrenching it; they sometimes surrounded it with a high earthwork and sometimes
with a stockade: the great thing being to put the assailing force under the disadvantage of having to climb. The three
river sides of the London fort presented a perpendicular cliff surmounted by a stockade, the other side, on which lay the
forest, probably had an earthwork also surmounted by a stockade. There were no buildings and there was no trade; the
people belonged to a tribe and had to go out and fight when war was carried on with another tribe.

The fort was called Llyn-din—the Lake Fort. When the Romans came they could not pronounce the word Llyn—Thlin
in the British way—and called it Lon—hence their word Londinium. Presently adventurous merchants from Gaul
pushed across to Dover, and sailed along the coast of Kent past Sandwich and through the open channel which then
separated the island of Thanet from the main land, into the broad Thames, and, sailing up with the tide, dropped anchor
off the fishing villages which lay along the river and began to trade. What did they offer? What Captain Cook offered
the Polynesians: weapons, clothes, adornments. What did they take away? Skins and slaves at first; skins and slaves,
and tin and iron, after the country became better known and its resources were understood. The taste for trading once
acquired rapidly grows; it is a delightful thing to exchange what you do not want for what you do want, and it is so very
easy to extend one's wants. So that when the Romans first saw London it was already a flourishing town with a great
concourse of merchants.

How long a period elapsed between the foundation of London and the arrival of the Romans? How long between the
foundation and the beginnings of trade? It is quite impossible even to guess. When Cæsar landed Gauls and Belgians
were already here before him. As for the Britons themselves they were Celts, as were the Gauls and the Belgians, but of
what is called the Brythonic branch, represented in speech by the Welsh, Breton and Cornish languages (the last is now
extinct). There were also lingering among them the surviving families of an earlier and a conquered race, perhaps
Basques or Finns. When the country was conquered by the Celts we do not know. Nor is there any record at all of the
people they found here unless the caves, full of the bones which they gnawed and cut in two for the marrow, were the
homes of these earlier occupants.

When the Romans came they found the town prosperous. That is all we know. What the town was like we do not
know. It is, however, probable that the requirements of trade had already necessitated some form of embankment and
some kind of quay; also, if trade were of long standing, some improvement in the huts, the manner of living, the wants,
and the dress of the people would certainly have been introduced.

Such was the beginning of London. Let us repeat.

It was a small fortress defended on three sides by earthworks, by stockades, by a cliff or steeply sloping bank, and by
streams; on the fourth side by an earthwork, stockade, and trench. The ground was slightly irregular, rising from 30 to
60 feet. An open moor full of quagmires and ponds also protected it on the north. On the east on the other side of the
stream rose another low hill. The extent of this British fort of Llyn-din may be easily estimated. The distance from
Walbrook to the Fleet is very nearly 900 yards; supposing the fort was 500 yards in depth from south to north we have
an area of 450,000 square yards, i.e. about 100 acres was occupied by the first London, the Fortress on the Lake.
What this town was like in its later days when the Romans found it; what buildings stood upon it; how the people lived,
we know very little indeed. They went out to fight, we know so much; and if you visit Hampstead Heath you may look
at a barrow on the top of a hill which probably contains the bones of those citizens of London who fell in the victory
which they achieved over the citizens of Verulam when they fought it out in the valley below that hill.

{11}

{12}

{13}

3. ROMAN LONDON.

PART I.

The Romans, when they resolved to settle in England, established themselves on the opposite hillock, the eastern bank
of the Walbrook. The situation was not so strong as that of the British town, because it was protected by cliff and river
on two sides only instead of three. But the Romans depended on their walls and their arms rather than the position of
their town. As was their habit they erected here a strong fortress or a stationary camp, such as others which remain in
the country. Perhaps the Roman building which most resembles this fort is the walled enclosure called Porchester, which
stands at the head of Portsmouth Harbour. This is rectangular in shape and is contained by a high wall built of rubble
stone and narrow bricks, with round, hollow bastions at intervals. One may also see such a stationary camp at
Richborough, near Sandwich; and at Pevensey, in Sussex; and at Silchester, near Reading, but the two latter are not
rectangular. One end of this fort was on the top of the Walbrook bank and the other, if you look in your map, on the
site of Mincing Lane. This gives a length of about 700 yards by a breadth of 350, which means an enclosure of about
50 acres. This is a large area: it was at once the barrack, the arsenal, and the treasury of the station; it contained the
residences of the officers, the offices of the station, the law court and tribunals, and the prisons; it was the official
residence. Outside the fort on the north was the burial place. If we desire to know the character of the buildings we may
assure ourselves that they were not mean or ignoble by visiting the Roman town of Silchester. Here we find that the
great Hall of Justice was a hall more spacious than Westminster Hall, though doubtless not so lofty or so fine. Attached
to this hall were other smaller rooms for the administration of justice; on one side was an open court with a cloister or
corridor running all round it and shops at the back for the sale of everything. This was the centre of the city: here the
courts were held; this was the Exchange; here were the baths; this was the place where the people resorted in the
morning and lounged about to hear the news; here the jugglers and the minstrels and the acrobats came to perform; it
was the very centre of the life of the city—as was Silchester so was London.

Walker & Boutallse. ROMAN LONDON.

ROMAN LONDON.

Outside the Citadel the rude British town—if it was still a rude town—disappeared rapidly. The security of the place,
strongly garrisoned, the extension of Roman manners, the introduction of Roman customs, dress, and luxuries gave a
great impetus to the development of the City. The little ports of the rivers Walbrook and Fleet no longer sufficed for the
shipping which now came up the river; if there were as yet no quays or embankments they were begun to be erected;
behind them rose warehouses and wharves. The cliff began to be cut away; a steep slope took its place; its very
existence was forgotten. The same thing has happened at Brighton, where, almost within the memory of living man, a
low cliff ran along the beach. This embankment extended east and west—as far as the Fleet River, which is now
Blackfriars, on the west, and what is now Tower Hill on the east. Then, the trade still increasing, the belt of ground
behind the embankment became filled with a dense population of riverside people—boatmen, sailors, boat-builders,
store-keepers, bargemen, stevedores, porters—all the people who belong to a busy mercantile port. As for the better
sort, they lived round the Citadel, protected by its presence, in villas, remains of which have been found in many places.

The two things which most marked the Roman occupation were London Wall and Bridge. Of the latter we will speak in
another place. The wall was erected at a time between a.d. 350 and a.d. 369—very near the end of the Roman
occupation. This wall remained the City wall for more than a thousand years; it was rebuilt, repaired, restored; the
scanty remains of it—a few fragments here and there—contain very little of the original wall; but the course of the wall
was never altered, and we know exactly how it ran. There was first a strong river wall along the northern bank. There
were three water gates and the Bridge gate; there were two land gates at Newgate and Bishopsgate. The wall was 3
miles and 205 yards long; the area enclosed was 380 acres. This shows that the population must have been already
very large, for the Romans were not accustomed to erect walls longer than they could defend.

{14}

{15}

{16}

4. ROMAN LONDON.

PART II.

We must think of Roman London as of a small stronghold on a low hill rising out of the river. It is a strongly-walled
place, within which is a garrison of soldiers; outside its walls stretch gardens and villas, many of them rich and beautiful,
filled with costly things. Below the fort is a long river wall or quay covered with warehouses, bales of goods, and a busy
multitude of men at work. Some are slaves—perhaps all. Would you like to know what a Roman villa was like? It was
in plan a small, square court, surrounded on three sides by a cloister or corridor with pillars, and behind the cloister the
rooms of the house; the middle part of the court was a garden, and in front was another and a larger garden. The house
was of one storey, the number and size of the rooms varying according to the size of the house. On one side were the
winter divisions, on the other were the summer rooms. The former part was kept warm by means of a furnace
constructed below the house, which supplied hot-air pipes running up all the walls. At the back of the house were the
kitchen, stables, and sleeping quarters of the servants. Tesselated pavements, statues, pictures, carvings, hangings,
pillows, and fine glass adorned the house. There was not in London the enormous wealth which enabled some of the
Romans to live in palaces, but there was comparative wealth—the wealth which enables a man to procure for himself in
reason all the things that he desires.

The City as it grew in prosperity was honoured by receiving the name of Augusta. It remained in Roman hands for
nearly four hundred years. The Citadel, which marks the first occupation by the Romans, was probably built about a.d.
43. The Romans went away in a.d. 410. During these four centuries the people became entirely Romanised. Add to this
that they became Christians. Augusta was a Christian city; the churches which stand—or stood, because three at least
have been removed—along Thames Street, probably occupied the sites of older Roman churches. In this part of the
City the people were thickest; in this quarter, therefore, stood the greater number of churches: the fact that they were
mostly dedicated to the apostles instead of to later Saxon saints seems to show that they stood on the sites of Roman
churches. It has been asked why there has never been found any heathen temple in London; the answer is that London
under the Romans very early became Christian; if there had been a temple of Diana or Apollo it would have been
destroyed or converted into a church. Such remains of Augusta as have been found are inconsiderable: they are nearly
all in the museum of the Guildhall, where they should be visited and examined.

The history of Roman London is meagre. Seventeen years after the building of the Citadel, on the rebellion of Boadicea,
the Roman general Suetonius abandoned the place, as unable to defend it. All those who remained were massacred by
the insurgents. After this, so far as we know, for history is silent, there was peace in London for 200 years. Then one
Carausius, an officer in command of the fleet stationed in the Channel for the suppression of piracies, assumed the title
of emperor. He continued undisturbed for some years, his soldiers remaining faithful to him on account of his wealth: he
established a Mint at London and struck a large amount of money there. He was murdered by one of his officers,
Allectus, who called himself emperor in turn and continued to rule in Britain for three years. Then the end came for him
as well. The Roman general landing with a large force marched upon London where Allectus lay. A battle fought in the
south of London resulted in the overthrow and death of the usurper. His soldiers taking advantage of the confusion
began to plunder and murder in the town, but were stopped and killed by the victors.

Constantine, who became emperor in 306, was then in Britain, but his name is not connected with London except by
coins bearing his name.

Tradition connects the name of Helena, Constantine's mother, with London, but there is nothing to prove that she was
ever in the island at all.

Late in the fourth century troubles began to fall thick upon the country. The Picts and the Scots overran the northern
parts and penetrated to the very walls of London. The general Theodosius, whose son became the emperor of that
name, drove them back. About this time the wall of London was built; not the wall of the Roman fort, but that of the
whole City. From the year 369, when Theodosius the general landed in Britain, to the year 609 we see nothing of
London except one brief glimpse of fugitives flying for their lives across London Bridge. Of this interval we shall speak
in the next chapter. Meanwhile it is sufficient to say that the decay of the Roman power made it necessary to withdraw
the legions from the outlying and distant portions of the Empire. Britain had to be abandoned. It was as if England were
to give up Hong Kong and Singapore and the West Indies because she could no longer spare the ships and regiments
to defend them. The nation which abandons her possessions is not far from downfall. Remember, when you listen to
those who advocate abandonment of our colonies, the example of Rome.

5. AFTER THE ROMANS.

PART I.

{17}

{18}

{19}

The Romans left London. That was early in the fifth century; probably in the year 410.

Two hundred years later we find the East Saxons in London.

What happened during this long interval of seven generations? Not a word reaches us of London for two hundred years
except once when, after a defeat of the British by the Saxons at Crayford in the year 457, we read that the fugitives
crossed over London Bridge to take refuge within the walls of the City. What happened during this two hundred
years?

On this subject, see the author's book London (Chatto & Windus).

We know what happened with other cities. Anderida, now called Pevensey, was taken by the Saxons, and all its
inhabitants, man, woman and child, were slaughtered, so that it became a waste until the Normans built a castle within
the old walls. Canterbury, Silchester, Porchester, Colchester—all were taken, their people massacred, the walls left
standing, the streets left desolate. For the English—the Saxons—loved not city walls. Therefore, we might reasonably
conclude that the same thing happened to London. But if it be worthy of the chronicler to note the massacre of
Anderida, a small seaport, why should he omit the far more important capture of Augusta?

Let us hear what history has to tell. Times full of trouble fell upon the country. Long before the Romans went away the
Picts and Scots were pouring their wild hordes over the north and west, sometimes getting as far south as the
Middlesex Forest, murdering and destroying. As early as the year 368, forty years before they left the country, the
Romans sent an expedition north to drive back these savages. Already the Saxons, the Jutes and the Angles were
sending piratical expeditions to harry the coast and even to make settlements. The arm of the Roman was growing
weak, it could not stretch out so far: the fleets of the Romans, under the officer called the 'Count of the Saxon Shore'—
whose duty was to guard the eastern and southern coasts—were destroyed and their commander slain. So that, with
foes on the eastern seaboard, foes in the Channel, foes in the river, foes in the north and west, it is certain that the trade
of Augusta was declining long before the City was left to defend itself.

What sort of defence were the people likely to offer? For nearly four hundred years they had lived at peace, free to
grow rich and luxurious, with mercenaries to fight for them. Between the taking of the City by Boadicea and the
departure of the Romans, a space of three hundred and fifty years, the peace of the City was only disturbed by the
lawlessness of Allectus's mercenaries. Their attempt to sack the City was put down, it is significant to note, not by the
citizens but by the Roman soldiers who entered the City in time. The citizens were mostly merchants: they were
Christians in name and in form of worship, they were superstitious, they were luxurious, they were unwarlike. Many of
them were not Britons at all, but foreigners settled in the City for trade. Moreover, for it is not true that the whole British
people had grown unfit for war, a revolt of the Roman legions in the year 407 drew a large number of the young men
into their ranks, and when Constantine the usurper took them over into Gaul for the four years' fighting which followed,
the country was drained of its best fighting material. The City, then, contained a large number of wealthy merchants,
native and foreign; it also contained a great many slaves who were occupied in the conduct of the trade, and few, since
the young men went away with Constantine, who could be relied upon to fight.

One more point may be made out from history. Since London was a town which then, as now, lived entirely by its trade
and was the centre of the export and import trade of the whole country, the merchants, as we have seen, must have
suffered most severely long before the Romans went away. We are, therefore, in the year 410, facing a situation full of
menace. The Picts and Scots are overrunning the whole of the north, the Saxons are harrying the east and the south-
east, trade is dying, there is little demand for imports, there are few exports, it is useless for ships to wait cargoes which
never arrive, it is useless for ships to bring cargoes for which there is no demand.

REMAINS OF A VIKING SHIP

REMAINS OF A VIKING SHIP, FROM A CAIRN AT GOKSTAD.

(Now in the University at Christiania.)

{20}

[1]

[1]

{21}

{22}

A declining city, a dying trade, enemies in all directions, an unwarlike population. When the curtain falls upon the scene
in the year 410 that is what we see.

6. AFTER THE ROMANS.

PART II.

Consider, again, the position of London. It stood, as you have seen, originally on two low hills overlooking the river. A
strong wall built all along the bank from Blackfriars (now so called) to the present site of the Tower kept the river from
swamping the houses and wharves which sprang up behind this wall. The walls of the City later on, but only about fifty
years before the Romans went away, enclosed a large area covered over with streets, narrow near the river and broad
farther north, and with residences, warehouses, villas, and workshops. There was probably a population of 70,000 or
even more. On the west, in the direction of Westminster, the City wall overlooked an immense marsh: on the south
across the river there was a still broader and longer marsh: on the east there was another great marsh with the sea
overflowing the sedgy meadows at every high tide: on the north there was a wild moor and beyond the moor there was
an immense forest. Four roads not counting the river-way kept the City in communication with the rest of the island. The
most important of these roads was that afterwards called Watling Street, which passed out at Newgate and led across
the heart of the country to Chester and Wales, to York and the north. The second, afterwards called Ermyn Street, left
the City at Bishopsgate and ran through Lincoln to York, a third road called the Vicinal Way ran into the eastern
counties, and by way of London Bridge Watling Street was connected with Dover.

London, therefore, standing in its marshes had no means of providing for itself. All the food for its great population was
imported. It was brought on pack asses along these roads. It came from the farms and gardens of the country inland by
means of these high roads, strong, broad, and splendid roads, as good as any we have since succeeded in making. In
peaceful times these roads were crowded all the way from Chester and Lincoln and Dover with long trains of animals
laden with provisions for the people of London, as well as with goods for export from the Port of London. They were
met by long trains of animals laden with imports being carried to their destination. The Thames in the same way was
filled with barges laden with provisions as well as with goods going down the river to the people and the Port of
London. Below Bridge the river was filled with merchant ships bringing cargoes of wine and spices and costly things to
be exchanged for skins and slaves and metals. Let us remember that the daily victualling of 70,000 people means an
immense service. We are so accustomed to find everything ready to hand in cities containing millions as well as in
villages of hundreds, that we forget the magnitude of this service. No mind can conceive the magnitude of the food
supply of modern London, Paris, New York, or even such towns as Portsmouth, Plymouth, Bristol. Yet try to
understand what it means to feed every day, without interruption, only a small town of 70,000 people. So much bread
for every day, so much meat, so much fish, so much wine, beer, mead, or cider—because at no time did people drink
water if they could get anything else—so much milk, honey, butter, cheese, eggs, poultry, geese and ducks, so much
beans, pease, salad, fruit. All this had to be brought in regularly—daily. There was salted meat for winter; there was
dried fish when fresh could not be procured; there were granaries of wheat to provide for emergencies. All the rest had
to be provided day by day.

First, the East Saxons, settling in Essex and spreading over the whole of that county, stopped the supplies and the trade
over all the eastern counties; then the Jutes, landing on the Isle of Thanet, stopped the ships that went up and down the
river; they also spread over the south country and stopped the supplies that formerly came over London Bridge. Then
the Picts and Scots, followed by more Saxons, harassed the north and middle of the island, and no more supplies came
down Watling Street. Lastly, the enemy, pressing northward from the south shore, gained the middle reaches of the
Thames, and no more supplies came down the river.

London was thus deprived of food as well as of trade.

This slowly, not suddenly, came to pass. First, one source of supply was cut off, then another. First, trade declined in
one quarter, then it ceased in that quarter altogether. Next, another quarter was attacked. The foreign merchants, since
there was no trade left, went on board their own ships and disappeared. Whether they succeeded in passing through the
pirate craft that crowded the mouth of the river, one knows not. The bones of many lie at the bottom of the sea off the
Nore. They vanished from hapless Augusta; they came back no more.

Who were left? The native merchants. Despair was in their hearts; starvation threatened them, even amid the dainty
appointments of their luxurious villas; what is the use of marble baths and silken hangings, tesselated pavements, and
pictures, and books, and statues, if there is no food to be had, though one bid for it all the pictures in the house? With
the merchants, there were the priests, the physicians, the lawyers, the actors and mimics, the artists, the teachers, all
who minister to religion, luxury, and culture. There were next the great mass of the people, the clerks and scribes, the
craftsmen, the salesmen, the lightermen, stevedores, boatmen, marine store keepers, makers of ships' gear, porters—
slaves for the most part—all from highest to lowest, plunged into helplessness. Whither could they fly for refuge? Upon
whom could they call for help?

{23}

{24}

{25}

{26}

7. AFTER THE ROMANS.

PART III.

Abroad, the Roman Empire was breaking up. The whole of Europe was covered with war. Revolts of conquered
tribes, rebellions of successful generals, invasions of savages, the murders of usurpers, the sacking of cities. Rome itself
was sacked by Alaric; the conquest of one country after another made of this period the darkest in the history of the
world. From over the seas no help, the enemy blocking the mouth of the river, all the roads closed and all the farms
destroyed.

There came a day at length when it was at last apparent that no more supplies would reach the City. Then the people
began to leave the place: better to fight their way across the country to the west where the Britons still held their own,
than to stay and starve. The men took their arms—they carried little treasure with them, because treasure would be of
no use to them on their way—their wives and children, ladies as delicate and as helpless as any of our own time—
children as unfit as our own to face the miseries of cold and hunger and nakedness—and they went out by the gate of
Watling Street, not altogether, not the whole population, but in small companies, for greater safety. They left the City by
the gate; they did not journey along the road, but for safety turned aside into the great forest, and so marching across
moors and marshes, past burned homesteads, and ruined villages, and farm buildings thrown down, those of them who
did not perish by the way under the enemies' sword or by malarious fever, or by starvation, reached the Severn and the
border of the mountains where the Saxon could not penetrate.

There was left behind a remnant—after every massacre or exodus there is always left a remnant. The people who
stayed in the City were only a few and those of the baser sort, protected by their wretchedness and poverty. No one
would kill those who offer no defence and have no treasures; and their condition under any new masters would be no
worse. They shut the gates and barred them: they closed and barred the Bridge: they took out of the houses anything
that they wanted—the soft warm mantles, the woollen garments, the coverlets, the pillows and hangings, but they abode
in their hovels near the river banks; as for the works of art, the pictures, statues, and tesselated pavements, these they
left where they found them or for wantonness destroyed them. They fished in the river for their food: they hunted over
the marshes where are now Westminster, Battersea, and Lambeth: the years passed by and no one disturbed them: they
still crouched in their huts while the thin veneer of civilisation was gradually lost with whatever arts they had learned and
all their religion except the terror of the Unknown.

Meanwhile the roofs of the villas and churches fell in, the walls decayed, the gardens were overgrown. Augusta—the
proud and stately Augusta—was reduced to a wall enclosing a heap of ruins with a few savages huddled together in
hovels by the riverside.

For the East Saxon had overrun Essex, the Jute covered Kent and Surrey, the South Saxon held Sussex, the West
Saxon held Wessex. All around—on every side—London was surrounded by the Conqueror of the Land. Why, then,
did they not take London? Because London was deserted; there was nothing to take: London was silent. No ships
going up or down the river reminded the Saxon of the City. It lay amid its marshes and its moors, the old roads choked
and overgrown; it was forgotten; it was what the Saxons had already made of Canterbury and Anderida, a 'Waste
Chester,' that is, a desolated stronghold.

Augusta was forgotten.

This is the story that we learn from the actual site of London—its position among marshes, the conditions under which
alone the people could be maintained.

How long did this oblivion continue? No one knows when it began or when it ended. As I read the story of the past, I
find a day towards the close of the sixth century when there appeared within sight of the deserted walls a company of
East Saxons. They were hunting: they were armed with spears: they followed the chase through the great forest
afterwards called the Middlesex Forest, Epping Forest, Hainault Forest, and across the marshes of the river Lea, full of
sedge and reed and treacherous quagmires. And they saw before them the gray walls of a great city of which they had
never heard.

They advanced cautiously: they found themselves on a firm road, the Vicinal Way, covered with grass: they expected
the sight of an enemy on the wall: none appeared. The gates were closed, the timbers were rotten and fell down at a
touch: the men broke through and found themselves among the streets of a city all in ruins. They ran about—shouting—
no one appeared: the City was deserted.

They went away and told what they had found.

But Augusta had perished. When the City appears again it is under its more ancient name—it is again London.

{27}

{28}

{29}

8. THE FIRST SAXON SETTLEMENT.

A hundred and fifty years passed away between the landing of the East Saxons and their recorded occupation of the
City. This long period made a great difference in the fierce savage who followed the standard of the White Horse and
landed on the coast of Essex. He became more peaceful: he settled down contentedly to periods of tranquillity. Certain
arts he acquired, and he learned to live in towns: as yet he was not a Christian. This means that the influence of Rome
with its religion, its learning and its arts had not yet touched him.

But he had begun to live in towns; and he lived in London.

Perhaps the first of the new settlers were the foreign merchants returning, as soon as more settled times allowed, with
their cargoes. London has always been a place of trade. But for trade no one would have settled in it. Therefore, either
the men of Essex invited the foreign merchants to return; or the foreign merchants returned and invited the men of Essex
to come into the City and to bring with them what they had to exchange.

In the year 597 Augustine, prior of a Roman monastery, was sent by Pope Gregory the Great with forty monks, to
convert the English. Ethelbert, King of Kent, and most powerful of the English kinglets, was married to Bertha, a
Christian princess. She had brought with her a chaplain and it was probably at her invitation or through her influence,
that the monks were sent. They landed at Thanet. They obtained permission to meet the King in the open air. They
appeared wearing their robes, carrying a crucifix, and chanting Psalms. It is probable that the conversion of the King
had been arranged beforehand; for without any difficulty or delay the King and all his Court, and, following the King's
example, all the people were baptised.

Augustine returned to Rome where he was consecrated Archbishop of the English nation. A church was built at
Canterbury, and the work of preaching the Faith went on vigorously. The East Saxons made no more hesitation at being
baptised than the men of Kent. Ethelbert, indeed, could command obedience; he was Over Lord of all the nations south
of the Humber. He it was, according to Bede, who built the first church of St. Paul in London, a fact which proves his
authority and influence in London, and his sincere desire that the East Saxons should become Christians.

They did, in a way. But when King Siebehrt died, they relapsed and drove their Bishop into exile.

Then—Bede says that they were punished for this sin—the East Saxons fell into trouble. They went to war with the men
of Wessex and were defeated by them. After this, we find London in the hands of the Northumbrians and the Mercians
—that is to say—these nations one after the other obtained the supremacy. It was in the year 616 or thereabouts, that
Bishop Mellitus had to leave his diocese. Forty years later another conversion of London took place under Bishop
Cedd, consecrated at Lindisfarne. The new faith was not strong enough to stand against a plague, and the East Saxons
of London went back once more to their old gods. After another thirty years, before the close of the seventh century,
London was again converted: and this time for good.

In the eighth century London passed again out of the hands of the East Saxon kings into those of the Mercians. The
earliest extant document concerning London is one dated 734, in which King Ethelbald grants to the Bishop of
Rochester leave to send one ship without tax in or out of London Port.

A witan—i.e. a national council—was held in London in 811. It is then spoken of as an illustrious place and royal city.
The supremacy of Mercia passed to that of Wessex—London went with the supremacy. In 833 Egbert, King of
Wessex, held a witan in London.

MARTYRDOM OF ST. EDMUND BY THE

{30}

{31}

DANES.

(From a drawing belonging to the Society of

Antiquaries.)

When Egbert died the supremacy of Wessex fell with him. Then the Danish troubles fell thick and disastrous upon the
country. When Alfred succeeded to the Crown the Danes held the Isle of Thanet, which commanded the river; they had
conquered the north country from the Tweed to the Humber; they had overrun all the eastern counties twice—viz., in
839 and in 852: they had pillaged London, which they presently occupied, making it their headquarters. With this
Danish occupation ends the first Saxon settlement of the City.

9. THE SECOND SAXON SETTLEMENT.

The Danes held the City for twelve years at least. One cannot believe that these fierce warriors, who were exactly what
the Saxons and Jutes had been four hundred years before—as fierce, as rude, as pagan—suffered any of the
inhabitants, except the slaves, to remain. Massacre and pillage—or the fear of both—drove away all the residents. But
the City was the headquarters of the Danes. Alfred recovered it in the year 884.

He found it as the East Saxons had found it three hundred years before, a city of ruins; the wall a ruin; the churches
destroyed.

King Alfred has left many imperishable monuments of his reign. One of the greatest is the City of London, which he
rebuilt. A recent historian (Loftie, Historic Towns, 'London') says that it would hardly be wrong to write, 'London was
founded, rather more than a thousand years ago, by King Alfred—who chose for the site of his city a place formerly
fortified by the Romans but desolated successively by the Saxons and the Danes.'

The first thing he did was to rebuild the wall. This work re-established confidence in the minds of the citizens. Alfred
placed his son-in-law Ethelred, afterwards Alderman (i.e. Chief man—Governor) of the Mercians, in command of the
City, which seems to have been immediately filled with people. The London citizens went out with Ethelred to defeat the
Danes at Benfleet, and with Alfred to defeat the Danes at the mouth of the river Lea; they went out with Athelstan to
fight at Brunanburgh. London was never again taken by the Danes. Twice Sweyn endeavoured to take the City but was
repulsed. Nor did London open her gates to him until the King had left the City. And when the Danes again entered the
City there was no more pillage or massacre; London was too strong to be pillaged or massacred, and too rich to be
abandoned to the army.

King Ethelred came back and died, and was buried in St. Paul's; the old St. Paul's—that of King Ethelbert or that of
Bishop Cedd—was burned down and the Londoners were building a new cathedral.

Edmund Ironside was elected and crowned within the City walls. Then followed a siege of London by Canute. He dug
a canal through the swamps, and dragged his ships by its means from Redriff to Lambeth. But he could not take the
City. But the Treaty of Partition between Edmund and himself was agreed upon and the Dane once more obtained the
City. He has left one or two names behind him. The church of St. Olave's in Hart Street, and that in 'Tooley,' or St.
Olave's Street, Southwark, and the Church of St. Magnus, attest to the sovereignty of the Dane.

SAXON HORSEMEN

SAXON HORSEMEN.

(Harl. MS. 603.)

At this time the two principal officers of the City were the Bishop and the Portreeve: there was also the 'Staller' or
Marshal. The principal governing body was the 'Knighten Guild,' which was largely composed of the City aldermen. But
these aldermen were not like those of the present day, an elected body: they were hereditary: they were aldermen in
right of their estates within the City. What powers the Knighten Guild possessed is not easy to define. Besides this, the

{32}

{33}

{34}

aristocracy of the City, there were already trade guilds for religious purposes and for feasting—but, as yet, with no
powers. The people had their folk mote, or general gathering: their ward mote: and their weekly hustings. We must not
seek to define the powers of all these bodies and corporations. They overlapped each other: the aristocratic party was
continually innovating while the popular party as continually resisted. In many ways what we call the government of the
City had not begun to be understood. That there was order of a kind is shown by the strict regulations, as strictly
enforced, of the...